LMX differentiation is good for some and bad for others: A multilevel analysis of effects of LMX differentiation in innovation teams

A multilevel investigation of leader–member exchange differentiation’s consequences: A moral disengagement perspective

We examine the effects of leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation on team members’ outcomes (customer-oriented constructive and destructive deviant behaviors) by using team moral disengagement as a psychological mechanism mediating this relationship and LMX differentiation bases (i.e., performance and personal liking) moderating the relationship. Analysis of multilevel data collected from 289 frontline employees organized into 76 finance-related customer service teams shows that LMX differentiation significantly reduced team moral disengagement only when the performance basis was high, and that the negative relationship between LMX differentiation and team moral disengagement was significant only when the personal liking basis was low. Furthermore, we found that the LMX bases moderated the indirect effect of LMX differentiation on team members’ outcomes through team moral disengagement. The findings advance team moral disengagement as a novel mechanism for cross-level relationship between LMX differentiation and team members’ outcomes at the individual level, and project differentiation bases as a condition under which LMX differentiation unpacks the reasons for team members’ favorable or unfavorable responses. They reveal LMX differentiation as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, whose essence can only be understood if examined from multiple levels. We also contribute to the literature by revealing the cognitive pathway through which LMX differentiation may be associated with team members outcomes.

Gaining insights into organizational communication dynamics through the analysis of implicit and explicit communication

This report in the journal Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie aims at presenting how the analysis of implicit and explicit communication in organizational interaction can advance our insights into and implications for these interactions for research and science. Communication is a central process in modern organizations. Especially recurring forms of interaction in organizations (e.g., meetings or appraisal interviews) are of great importance for personal and organizational success. In these interactions, the communication between the interacting organizational members has a decisive impact on the interactions’ course and outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with the interaction, performance during the interaction). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present two aspects of communication that are empirically shown to contribute to successful outcomes of organizational interactions. Based on a practical problem, we illustrate the analysis and implications of (1) implicit communication (that is, the use and coordination of unconsciously used function words such as pronouns, articles, or prepositions) and (2) explicit communication (that is, the overarching meaning of a statement). To further illustrate the practical relevance of both communication behaviors, we present empirical insights and their implications for practice. Taking a glance at the future, possible combinations of these communication behaviors, the resulting avenues for future research, and the importance of a strengthened cooperation between research and practice to gain more naturalistic insights into organizational communication dynamics are discussed.

Brokers Compensate for Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Abstract. Due to the relevance of innovations for organizational success, we investigated the impact of (relative) leader–member exchange (LMX) on individual- and team-level perceptions of the climate for innovation (PCI) as well as whether the presence of an individual with a high LMX relationship who plays a mediating role for individuals with lower LMX relationships during team meetings (i.e., a broker) moderates the effects of LMX differentiation. We conducted multilevel analyses of self-assessment and video data from 286 employees in 45 innovation teams. The results confirm the positive effect of (relative) LMX (RLMX) on PCI. The negative effect of LMX differentiation on PCI is not present in teams with a broker. Finally, individuals with high RLMX play a more central role in meetings than those with low RLMX.

Wie authentisch führe ich? Prüfung der Selbsteinschätzungsform des Deutschen Inventars Authentischer Führung

Dieser Beitrag der Zeitschrift „Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)“ beschäftigt sich mit der Prüfung und Validierung der Selbsteinschätzungsform des Deutschen Inventars Authentischer Führung.

Authentische Führung hat sich in den letzten Jahren als ein zentrales positives Führungskonzept herausgebildet. Allerdings liegt im deutschsprachigen Raum bisher nur ein Instrument zur Fremdeinschätzung vor: Das Deutsche Inventar authentischer Führung (DIAF-F). In diesem Beitrag wird ein Instrument zur Selbsteinschätzung authentischer Führung (DIAF-S) mit den Komponenten Selbstbewusstheit, Transparenz in Beziehungen, ausgewogene Informationsverarbeitung und verinnerlichte moralische Perspektive vorgestellt und erprobt. Zur ersten Validierung des neuen Verfahrens wurden Daten von N = 91 Führungskräften und N = 259 Mitarbeitenden erfasst. Für die Gesamtskala und drei der vier Komponenten ergaben sich interne Konsistenzen im befriedigenden bis guten Bereich. Das DIAF‑S wies bedeutsame Zusammenhänge mit organisationalen Außenkriterien (durch Führungskraft eingeschätzte Arbeitsleistung der Mitarbeitenden, Voice-Verhalten und Moral Courage) auf. Zudem zeigte sich für einen Großteil der Komponenten die erwartete moderate Übereinstimmung zwischen selbst- und fremdeingeschätzter authentischer Führung. Mittels konfirmatorischer Faktorenanalysen ließ sich eine Verwendung der vierfaktoriellen Struktur analog zur Fremdbeurteilung rechtfertigen. Eine explorative Faktorenanalyse legte eher eine dreifaktorielle Struktur der selbsteingeschätzten authentischen Führung nahe. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden alternative Modelle authentischer Führung diskutiert. Insgesamt betrachtet stellt das DIAF‑S ein weitgehend reliables und valides Instrument für die Selbsteinschätzung authentischer Führung und damit eine wichtige Ergänzung zum DIAF‑F dar.